picboy wrote:
Folks, Huff is a professional photographer. Respect what he says. You are probably just a frustrated amateur, with a real job, that has no business saying which camera is better.

In fact, I suggest all posters self identify, you know like Phd's do. " Joe Pixel, PP". That way we can just read what real pros think rather than all the poser stuff.

Picboy, Poser

Huff is not a professional photographer and in fact states this many times in his reviews. He is a photo enthusiast who was able to turn his blog into a living. Does having a website make one a pro these days ?

Does it really matter though if one is a professional or not ? I earn my living solely through photography, primarily sports and corporate work, but that hardy makes me a better photographer than many people here who are amateurs. I might have a bit more know how in what it takes to cover an NFL game, how to work with a 15 minute deadline to edit and caption per wire service requirements etc but as far as creativity and vision there are many here that I think I can't even come close to. Maybe I could talk more about the D3s vs D4 as I use them day in and day out, but for casual usage cameras such as the RX1, I use them the same way as anyone else, to take pictures when out on a walk around town, on vacation etc. What I do for a living really has very little bearing on this, nor does it give me any more or less ability to judge things like native sharpness.

I have however returned to graduate school for a doctorate so at least I'll have another way to identify myself

picboy wrote:
Folks, Huff is a professional photographer. Respect what he says. You are probably just a frustrated amateur, with a real job, that has no business saying which camera is better.

In fact, I suggest all posters self identify, you know like Phd's do. " Joe Pixel, PP". That way we can just read what real pros think rather than all the poser stuff.

Picboy, Poser

In this context, he's a professional blogger expressing an opinion on a site open to the public. If his ego isn't strong enough to handle a little ridicule from people he doesn't know and will likely never meet, then he should give up the blog and concentrate on another profession. But it is sweet of you to play defender-troll for him.

Why would you self-identify as someone pretending to be something he isn't? If you're going to lie, at least have the guts to follow through.

picboy wrote:
Folks, Huff is a professional photographer. Respect what he says. You are probably just a frustrated amateur, with a real job, that has no business saying which camera is better.

In fact, I suggest all posters self identify, you know like Phd's do. " Joe Pixel, PP". That way we can just read what real pros think rather than all the poser stuff.

Picboy, Poser

who's saying which camera is better? huff is certainly not a pro photographer in the sense that his primary income doesn't come from paid photography gigs. i don't much care for what actual professional photographers say either though, since they tend to have very different needs and desires than i do (no offense millsart). i'm happy to see steve's comparisons to find out more about the differences between cameras, but i have trouble actually reading his reviews as they always kinda sound like PR to me.

Sorry if I offended. Post was meant as a joke. Yes Huff goes overboard with his excitement on ocassion. However he was very balanced on his final Leica Vario X review, at least I thought so having shot the camera myself for a week.

I have the RX 1. Got it when it hit the store. It has been to China. Africa, and all over th US as an assignment and tourist camera. It is very versatile, and in places where taking someone's picture can get you shot, a lifesaver. We just sent images to our graphics person today and hopefully to a big print run next week. Needless to say, the 'standard' RX 1 produces very high grade photos that are suitable for the best publications.

While the new R version may provide more resolution, it is likely beyond what the majority of intended usage formats will be able to distinguish from a standard RX1. But if you are buying one today, the fact that they cost same, will likely drive you to the new model. I know the manager of the local Sony Super store, and he says it is a big headache to have the two models next to each other. Everyone wants the 'new' one.

The thing with Huff is just that he's Ken Rockwell-ish, except less critical. A couple times a year he proclaims something the best ever-- and changes everything before-- gets really excited (which I think is his genuine reaction... but also suits his financial incentives), and then posts links at the bottom of that excitement, over and over again, through which to purchase those goods and give him a tiny cut of the price you just paid.

I do in fact think he's genuine in what he likes and praises. But let's be honest: It doesn't really matter what you buy when you click on his links (he gets a cut no matter what), but it doesn't take a lot of brains to figure out that the new, exciting, shiny thing gets the most interest and the most sales.

He can be an entertaining, annoying read. But I wouldn't put much real stock into what he says. And I definitely don't buy for a second his comment rebuttals where he says stuff like, "I've used them all. Believe me, I'm right and you're wrong."

Back to the actual topic: I think this whole thing is pretty simple. The RX1R is going to have a small resolution increase, particularly before PP (but likely after as well). I'm not convinced there will be much if any visible difference in 99% of prints/screen output. In trade it will generate a small, particularly before PP (but likely after as well) increase in moire and certain types of color/pattern artifacting. I'm not convinced there will be much if any visible difference in 99% of prints/screen output.

I bet the difference between the RX1 and RX1R on a resolution front is like adding 2MP (figured grabbed out of thin air) to the camera. Not much.

I think it's mostly a wash. It's a marketing move for 99% of people considering the RX1, a way to keep it fresh and exciting and get more sales for just a little longer. And it makes sense given the release of the RX100II and the price of the RX1 starting to slip in the used market (low enough I'm damn tempted, but jeez I really want to hold off for snappier AF in a real 2nd gen version).

Getting rid of an AA filter is a corner-quality issue, most other areas of interest are mostly moot.

Pixel-to-pixel contrast is useless unless you can trust the result. I've shot the D800E and the D800 side by side on a few occasions, and I've also run controlled tests on them. The difference is minimal (but that's mainly because the layer thickness is still there, just applied differently)

If they had made the D800E without the birefringent filter layers though, and moved the sensor forward by the corresponding amount -the D800E would be much more interesting. That would give corner sharpness a huge boost, while not destroying central area usefulness completely. As it is now htough, I see very little use for the D800E outside macro and other high-aperture-value work.

I would (right now) without doubt get the new version of the Sony though. It isn't actually noticeably better in any normal usage case I've seen, but still...
The additional functionality also seems well thought out, and adds value to the package.

theSuede wrote:
I would (right now) without doubt get the new version of the Sony though. It isn't actually noticeably better in any normal usage case I've seen, but still...
The additional functionality also seems well thought out, and adds value to the package.

Wait, I'm confused. What additional functionality are you talking about? The only differences between the cameras that I'm aware of are the lack of an AA filter and a revised HDMI out for Sony TVs.

Also, from what I can gather, it seems that Sony just replaced the AA filter with clear glass. Do you think the corner performance will improve much?

I'm fine with my existing rx1. I personally don't need more sharpness and more artifacts. If I shot landscapes primarily with it maybe...as a people cam I'd but the original over the new one. My opinion could change, but I just don't see ay real benefit outside of landscape shooting..and honestly for a specific landscape trip I prefer a wider lens. For filling in, the rx1 not r, is perfectly fine. Still to nice some have options. I wi DDR how many will get returned for Moire problems by people who don't realize and think newer is better.

douglasf13 wrote:
Wait, I'm confused. What additional functionality are you talking about? The only differences between the cameras that I'm aware of are the lack of an AA filter and a revised HDMI out for Sony TVs.

Also, from what I can gather, it seems that Sony just replaced the AA filter with clear glass. Do you think the corner performance will improve much?

Sorry, that was the RX100m2 with WiFi - my boggle.

Most of my usage of the camera would be low-light handheld, so contrary to in-studio or tripod-mounted landscape or architecture sharpness is rarely a problem.

The sad thing about Huff is that he went so far as to claim that the RXIr was as sharp as the Leica S2, then to the point of saying it was as sharp as any camera could possibly get - ever! - as sharp as any 60mp MF or even as sharp as an LF film camera no matter how fine the emulsion, claiming that there was a limit to sharpness and that the Sony had reached it. He got so out of hand that he was practically shrieking at someone for contradicting him, like a frenzied madman.

When pointed out that he would be claiming the same for the next wonder box within the year, and that he would later regret his outrageous claim, he replied that he never regrets what he says, since he speaks the truth. He's a real hoot!

99% of RX1 images that succeed do so for reasons that are more to do with the elegant drawing style, magic bokeh, wide open performance, flatness of field, high ISO and WB capability, colour handling, file robustness, DR and camera ergonomics than the measurable acutance or resolution of the lens. Visit the image thread for confirmation.

It's a surprise the non-AA gets any coverage at all, to be honest.

'a way to keep it fresh and exciting'

Anyone needing this from their RX1 needs to book a checkup with their medical practitioner, lol.

philip_pj wrote:
99% of RX1 images that succeed do so for reasons that are more to do with the elegant drawing style, magic bokeh, wide open performance, flatness of field, high ISO and WB capability, colour handling, file robustness, DR and camera ergonomics than the measurable acutance or resolution of the lens. Visit the image thread for confirmation.

That is depressing. Composition, timing, an aesthetic sense, and a rewarding subject are only 1%?

Generally anything discussed in an equipment forum is done so with regards to technical aspects of photography and I think that is common sense among its participants.

To try to take someone to task over omitting things like a rewarding subject and timing is grasping at straws at best, and self propagandizing over what an "artist" one is at worst.

This is a place to discuss objective qualities of given camera's and lenses just as the presentation forums are a place to discuss the "art".

Just as its kind of bad form to take someone to task over feeling the corner performance of their lens is suffering when they present a shot they find aesthetically pleasing in a landscape presentation forum, calling anyone for not mentioning those things in an equipment forum is in equally bad taste.

So lets just assume that we all have great timing and aesthetics, with flawless compositional skills, and that we shoot subjects that are both personally rewarding and that also move forward the social consciousness with our work, so that with all that said, we can get back to the shallow and cold technical debate of actual issues of the thread, discussion of the AA filter on resolution, corner performance et al .